Can the Internet Help Erase the Global Divide?

The Internet has the potential to be a powerful tool in helping to erase not only the global digital divide, but also the so-called North-South divide that sets apart the wealthy nations from the impoverished. Nations that are left behind in the dust of technology are essentially being left behind altogether. This is because of the overall increasing reliance on technology that countries all over the world are experiencing. For those of you who say that technology doesn't play a big role or doesn't matter at all when it comes to a nation's prosperity, consider this following example.

Country A is a place that utilizes the power of computers, the Internet, advanced weapons systems, and where each individual has the opportunity to learn about or make better virtually anything they please. Country B does not have the capability to use computers or the Internet. Which country do you think is going to be more prosperous in today's time? Clearly, Country A will be the stronger of the two. The fact of the matter is, the Internet does have the potential to erase this divide or at least make the problem better because conditions will get better as more individuals and companies take the initiative (like a farmer researching online how to make his growing process more efficient or Intel pledging to connect 1 billion more people to the Internet). The Internet provides a way to transcend the troubles of life in third world countries and enables the user to connect with people and information all over the world (as long as it's not censored by the government). It will not yield immediate results; it will be a gradual shift towards prosperity. The problem is providing these people with Internet access. It will be difficult, but it is certainly not impossible.

MySpace Shipping out to Japan

Apparently, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. is planning to provide a Japanese version of MySpace but will face stiff competition from the most popular social networking site currently in Japan, Mixi. Mixi has about 8 million users and has a significantly different appearance from MySpace. You can view the original article here. The main difference between the two is said to be representative of the clash of cultures between America and Japan. America's MySpace is known for its flashy and "teen-magazine-like" layouts while Japan's Mixi is known for its clean, organized design. Tony Elison, senior vice president at Viacom International Japan, argues that "In Mixi, it's not all about me. It's all about us." As opposed to MySpace where the dominant impression is that the complete opposite is true. Do you think these differences in design are representative of the different cultures, Japan being viewed as more refined and the U.S. as more flashy and full of teenie-boppers? Or is this view invalid and making a broad generalization that may not neccesarily be true? Just some things to think about.

Farmers Use Web Forums to their Advantage

Going along with our discussion regarding online communities, I came across an interesting article on CNN, which you can access here http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/internet/02/12/online.farmers.ap/index.html. The article talks about how an increasing number of farmers are using forums to help them increase productivity and run a more successful farm. Apparently, as of 2005, 51% of farms have Internet access even though 2/3 of them use a dial-up modem. So it would seem that they are not using the most advanced technology available (DSL, Cable, fiber-optics), but they are still using the Internet to help advance their professions. This story is another testament to the good that can come out of forums in that sense that these farming forums have saved many farmers across America money, time, and embarrassment.

When used correctly (not abused or rife with spam/flame wars for example), forums provide a venue where people from all different places can benefit and where all can become more prosperous. I do wonder, however, what this will do to farming competition and how it will affect consumers. Not all people would like to see their competition becoming more prosperous than them so it will be interesting to see how this turns out. All in all, though, it is a good thing when online communities are used for beneficial means.

Social Networking Goes Mobile

Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, it happens. I'm of course referring to the fact that now, according to this CNN Technology article: http://www.cnn.com/2007/BUSINESS/02/14/barcelona.boulden2/index.html
technology executives in Barcelona are developing social networking sites designed specifically for mobile phones. As if social networking isn't already big enough. Seriously, is it so bad that people can't even wait before they get back to a computer before they check their profile? Social networking online is already doing a great job of usurping precious time from people, so do we really need the ability to access social networking from our phones now too? As enticing as this sounds, I would think that this wouldn't become too popular because I imagine when using a phone for such a thing there would be some limitations and sacrifices to be made (cell phones don't have easy to type on computer keyboards). Ah, I remember the days when a phone was used to actually call other people. I just hope that in the wake of all these new additions and advancements that they don't forget to program in the calling feature into the phone, but I wouldn't worry too much about this because after all, it seems to be becoming obsolete.

Fox Shows on MySpace

FOX has recently launched a new advertising campaign via MySpace (both under the ownership of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.) in order to keep interest in the fall lineup of its shows. The fear is that during March Madness and other televised events, interest in shows like 24 and Prison Break will wane and they will lose viewers. To combat this problem, FOX has launched this site http://www.myspace.com/fox on which people can watch full HD-streamed episodes of their favorite shows with the simple, painfree download of the FOX Full Throttle Player. This is just another example of how powerful the Internet is becoming in regards to advertising and its potential. If you were to miss an episode of 24, for example, you would be able to watch it at any time online. People might argue that TIVO does the same thing, but the difference is that this is free. Now since I'm a little weary of "free" stuff because rarely is there not a catch, I wonder if the full throttle player comes with some sort of adware or spyware or if this is just an honest attempt to advertise for the shows. I realize that the shows are free to watch, but I'd like to remind you that in order to watch the show someone has to have purchased that TV, that antenna or cable, and also these shows usually come out on season DVD's. So I would think that the ability to watch the episodes online would decrease future DVD sales as well as increase the show's popularity.

A Completely Uncensored Internet?

In her book Virtually Obscene, Amy E. White makes the case for an unregulated Internet using pornography as a specific example in the wider argument of Internet censorship. She claims, among other things, that censorship defies the Constitution and breaks the 1st Amendment right for people to post and view such material. She believes that pornography on the Internet does not corrupt children and even makes the argument that it can be educational and therefore should be viewed as a positive thing. White lays blame on the parents of children who view inappropriate material because, as she notes in her book, that "computers do not connect to the Internet themselves" and the underage child had to have a computer plus Internet access to view the material so it's not like it was so easy to get a hold of. These are her main arguments and she feels strongly about her position, whether you agree with her or not is a different story.

Video Game Censorship in Germany

I came across an interesting article on Wired.com (http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,72619-0.html?tw=wn_culture_5), which talks about how Germany's troubled history is still affecting the country today in the form of video game censorship. The article describes "Germany's dilemma [as] how to reconcile its determination to apply the lessons of the past to educating and protecting its youth, while remaining a free and open society as set down in its version of the U.S. Constitution." Germany's sensitivity to violence and the perpetuation of violence in different mediums has led it to prevent the sale of games like Counter-Strike unless the blood and gore features are disabled. Do you think this video game censoring is the right thing to do to adequately protect society or is Germany just being extremely sensitive to violence at all costs? It's interesting to compare this with video games in the United States and the relatively wide range of games available on the market (although the argument for censorship in the U.S. certainly can be made as well). This kind of government intervention or influence also plays an important role in issues of online anonymity as well, in the sense that companies can subpoena ISP's to release names of people using the service if they are suspected of offenses like music or software pirating. Does this somewhat erode the idea of online anonymity in some cases or is it justified to limit a person's online anonymity in certain cases?